Cargando…

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fang, Shirong, Yang, Jinhong, Song, Lei, Jiang, Yan, Liu, Yuxiu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744109
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S142556
_version_ 1783250731313135616
author Fang, Shirong
Yang, Jinhong
Song, Lei
Jiang, Yan
Liu, Yuxiu
author_facet Fang, Shirong
Yang, Jinhong
Song, Lei
Jiang, Yan
Liu, Yuxiu
author_sort Fang, Shirong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs). METHODS: A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSION: Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5513891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55138912017-07-25 Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy Fang, Shirong Yang, Jinhong Song, Lei Jiang, Yan Liu, Yuxiu Patient Prefer Adherence Original Research BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs). METHODS: A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSION: Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process. Dove Medical Press 2017-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5513891/ /pubmed/28744109 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S142556 Text en © 2017 Fang et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Fang, Shirong
Yang, Jinhong
Song, Lei
Jiang, Yan
Liu, Yuxiu
Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
title Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
title_full Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
title_fullStr Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
title_short Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
title_sort comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744109
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S142556
work_keys_str_mv AT fangshirong comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy
AT yangjinhong comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy
AT songlei comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy
AT jiangyan comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy
AT liuyuxiu comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy